New Zealand's total of 68 in the fourth innings at Lord's is their ninth-lowest total in Tests; six of those have been against England. In terms of overs faced, the 22.3 that they were bowled out in at Lord's is their second-lowest ever, next only to the 19.2 that they faced against South Africa in Cape Town earlier this year.

Forty wickets fell for 720 runs in the Test, an average of 18 runs per wicket. This is the lowest match average at Lord's in the last 12 years, and the second-lowest in the last 53. The only instance of a lower average since 1960 was the 2000 Test between England and West Indies, when 646 runs were scored for the loss of 38 wickets - an average of 17. England won that Test by two wickets despite being bowled out for 134 in their first innings, because they hit back and bowled West Indies out for 54 in their second. New Zealand's 68 is the lowest total at Lord's since West Indies' 54 in that game.

For only the second time in their Test history, New Zealand's top six all fell for single-digit scores. The only previous instance of this happening was against Pakistan in Dhaka in 1955-56. Overall, this is the 19th such instance in Tests.

New Zealand lost their first six wickets for 29, the third time in 2013 that they've been six down for less than 40. In the first Test of the South Africa tour in Cape Town, they were six down for 28 before being bowled out for 45. In the next Test, in Port Elizabeth, they were 39 for 6 before being all out for 121.

Stuart Broad's figures of 7 for 44 are his best in Tests, and his second haul of seven in Tests: he had taken 7 for 72 against West Indies at the same venue last year. In ten Tests at Lord's, Broad has taken 47 wickets at 26.82; At no other venue has he taken even 20 Test wickets. (Click here for his venue-wise stats.)

Broad's seven wickets came in just 11 overs. Only four times in Test cricket has a bowler bowled fewer deliveries in an innings to finish with a haul of seven or more wickets. The last of those instances was in 1952, when Fred Trueman took 8 for 31 in 8.4 overs against India at Old Trafford.

New Zealand's top-score in their second innings was 17, by Neil Wagner, batting at No. 9. Only five times in their Test history have New Zealand had a lower top-score. One of those five instances was in Cape Town earlier this year, when Kane Williamson's 13 was the top-score in a total of 45.

This is the fourth time in the last seven years that a No. 9 batsman has top-scored for New Zealand in Tests. Tim Southee did it in consecutive Tests in 2010-11 - scoring 31 against India in the third Test of the 2010 series in Nagpur, and 56 against Pakistan. Daniel Vettori was the other batsman who achieved it during this period, scoring 38 against South Africa in April 2006. Between March 1990 and March 2006, there wasn't a single such instance for New Zealand.

New Zealand didn't have a whole lot to celebrate on the final day, except in the first hour, when they took four wickets to bundle England out for 213. The architect of that collapse was Southee, who took six in the second innings to finish with a match haul of 10 for 108. Southee became only the second New Zealand bowler to take ten wickets in a Lord's Test. The first wasn't Richard Hadlee, but Dion Nash, who took 11 for 169 in 1994. Hadlee's best here was 8 for 135 in 1983, while he also took seven on a couple of occasions.

Hugely disappointing for NZ after they had been a very competitive fielding and bowling unit, but everyone knew that NZ's batting is fragile. You only have to compare the stats of the top 6 for each team and you can see the gulf in experience and averages. Many commented on the need for NZ to produce openers who could blunt the new ball and despite those impressive performances in NZ both Fulton and Rutherford look vulnerable. It doesn't matter who you are playing, if the openers fall cheaply the bowling side brims with confidence and the pressure on the middle order climbs considerably. This has been an area that has held back NZ cricket for over a decade.

dummy4fb
on May 20, 2013, 5:15 GMT

I think it is not fair because New zealand hardly plays good test mattches with good sides. Why they only play 2 test matches in a seris they should atleast play 3 and theydont even have that much matches compare to india or australia.they also desrve more matches at Home look at india they played four matches aganist england and australia and 5 odi and more at home why doesnt nz have that much matches.

dummy4fb
on May 19, 2013, 22:55 GMT

This is very sad what's going on with New Zealand. They need to play more Test matches against good teams

dummy4fb
on May 20, 2013, 11:51 GMT

Hugely disappointing for NZ after they had been a very competitive fielding and bowling unit, but everyone knew that NZ's batting is fragile. You only have to compare the stats of the top 6 for each team and you can see the gulf in experience and averages. Many commented on the need for NZ to produce openers who could blunt the new ball and despite those impressive performances in NZ both Fulton and Rutherford look vulnerable. It doesn't matter who you are playing, if the openers fall cheaply the bowling side brims with confidence and the pressure on the middle order climbs considerably. This has been an area that has held back NZ cricket for over a decade.

dummy4fb
on May 20, 2013, 5:15 GMT

I think it is not fair because New zealand hardly plays good test mattches with good sides. Why they only play 2 test matches in a seris they should atleast play 3 and theydont even have that much matches compare to india or australia.they also desrve more matches at Home look at india they played four matches aganist england and australia and 5 odi and more at home why doesnt nz have that much matches.

dummy4fb
on May 19, 2013, 22:55 GMT

This is very sad what's going on with New Zealand. They need to play more Test matches against good teams

No featured comments at the moment.

dummy4fb
on May 19, 2013, 22:55 GMT

This is very sad what's going on with New Zealand. They need to play more Test matches against good teams

dummy4fb
on May 20, 2013, 5:15 GMT

I think it is not fair because New zealand hardly plays good test mattches with good sides. Why they only play 2 test matches in a seris they should atleast play 3 and theydont even have that much matches compare to india or australia.they also desrve more matches at Home look at india they played four matches aganist england and australia and 5 odi and more at home why doesnt nz have that much matches.

dummy4fb
on May 20, 2013, 11:51 GMT

Hugely disappointing for NZ after they had been a very competitive fielding and bowling unit, but everyone knew that NZ's batting is fragile. You only have to compare the stats of the top 6 for each team and you can see the gulf in experience and averages. Many commented on the need for NZ to produce openers who could blunt the new ball and despite those impressive performances in NZ both Fulton and Rutherford look vulnerable. It doesn't matter who you are playing, if the openers fall cheaply the bowling side brims with confidence and the pressure on the middle order climbs considerably. This has been an area that has held back NZ cricket for over a decade.